9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ordering confiscation, giving option to redeem title goods and imposing penalty on the appellant concern and also the partners of the said concern. 2. The reasoning of the Commissioner as contained in para 14 is reproduced below :- I find that the Show Cause Notice in the instant case had been issued to the importer on 28-7-2006 asking the importer for payment of differential Customs duty, recovery of interest under Section 28 AB of Customs Act, 1962, imposition of penalty under section 12 and confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Act ibid. The importer s advocates vide the letter dated 30-8-06 had sought some time for submission of the defence reply but till date no reply has been received. The personal hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, it was contended that as the goods were cleared by the appellant after proper passing of assessment order by the Customs, the Department should have gone into an appeal against the assessment order if they had any grievance on it. According to him the department should not have taken the recourse to issue show cause notice. In this context, he relies upon yet another Apex Court judgment in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). 5. The learned DR states that the appellant s partners have made a clear breast of under-invoicing in their various statements. None of them so far has been retracted by them. He further states that by way of seizure, two se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er invoicing. The documentary evidence available in the records goes to prove that under-invoicing stands established against the appellants. In this connection, we have come across a matter decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Asian Paints v. CCE reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 522 (SC). The following were the observations :- We have read the judgments of the Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which are impugned in these appeals. We are of the view that the judgments viewed Sections 35E and 11A of the Central Excise Act in the proper perspective. The two sections operate in different fields and are invoked for different purposes. Different time limits are, therefore, set out therein. We do not ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to by the learned counsel of the appellant in Nizam Sugar Factory and Priya Blue Industries (supra) is not of much help for the appellants as we find that the factual position in the present case is not comparable to either of them. We, therefore hold that prima facie the department has arrived at a proper decision on undervaluation after affording enough opportunity to the appellants to defend themselves before passing of the impugned order. We, therefore, direct the appellants B.B. Associates and B.B. Interlining to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalties payable under the impugned order within six weeks from today failing which the appeals of the defaulting appellants shall stand dismissed. In view of the above imposition, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
